Hey man, I appreciate the fair assessment. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I am open to talking about it. I like these games and their mechanics, rules, and concepts. And I want to offer an alternative view to the heavy GM fiat style we see these days in the hobby. But I appreciate, for once, a fair and articulate perspective.
@@TheBasicExpert well a thanks is owed to TSH. I see bad faith arguements as destructive on two levels: first, it just leads to combative arguing that is more about attacking the other side and less about presenting the side you're supposed to champion. Second, it kills growth of good ideas. Instead of seeing all the strengths and weaknesses from the two sides, an observer simply sees two people insulting each other and by extention, themselves if they happen to even slightly agree.
I am always reminded of an old Emo Phillips bit. I am certain I can't say the punchline on TH-cam, but it's basically him and another guy going through a series of ever-increasingly obscure ecumenical distinctions in their worship. Everything is fine until the last question. Purity spirals ruin friendships.
Gamest, Dramatist, Simulationest, Narrativest, and Companionest are what your looking at. As the game is HUMAN-centric. Not Game-centric. That's the problem. The focus is on the game - not on the players. The players are going to lean into one of those five categories. No one is 100% unless they are nerodivergent in some way, but they are going to lean one way or another. A good GM will recognize the Player type, and feed the game accordingly to all of the players. The game will take the shape of the players if you know what your doing as good GM. The Game System will lend itself toward one "style" or player or another. That's one of the main criticisms I have of 5e, is that its attempting to play to all five, and results in playing to none satisfactorily in the game rules, and leaving a lot more work for the GM than needed. And the more they expand it, the more work it creates. Its a horrible system as a result, unless you limit players to the 2014 PHB only. That I why I'm a big proponent of static rule systems like you find in Castles & Crusades/Amazing Adventures and "finished" editions of (A)D&D. These require less work to set up and less work to run than 3.x, 4e, 5e, 5e24, PF, PF2e, PF2eR, SF, SF2e, etc.etc. And that is what gaming is all about - me as the GM. The HackMaster 4th Edition Game Masters Guilde makes it very clear on page 191, the game is all about me as the GM.
@@TheCastleKeeper not at all a bad assessment of the situation as a whole, though I find 3.5e D&D to be one of the single most GM friendly systems available because if is modular. The issue comes in when people try to use every supplement and variant and option available all at once instead of doing exactly what you said, which is selecting the options that best tailor the game to your table and its style. I agree that 5e is a mess though I disagree about why. Its biggest issue is not that it tries to be everything, but that it is radically player focused and everything is built around pandering to player vanity and power fantasy instead of being built around giving the GM tools to craft a balanced gaming experience for all at the table, including the GM.
It’s just that you’re not supposed to ever go on record saying that you fudge from time to time. If you do it, do it, but never let your players know, never have it in writing ANYWHERE lol
@@Wesley_Youre_a_Rabbit very true. It's a little different when you're running a TH-cam channel that discusses these things. It should also be done very sparringly. I fudge dice, but it's happened on maybe 3 rolls in the past year.
@@drivinganddragons1818 You don't fudge the dice roll. You fudge the target number - and there are ways to do that in-game. Environmental factors are a God-send to a creative GM.
Hey man, I appreciate the fair assessment. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I am open to talking about it. I like these games and their mechanics, rules, and concepts. And I want to offer an alternative view to the heavy GM fiat style we see these days in the hobby. But I appreciate, for once, a fair and articulate perspective.
And I should say T-Shirted sent me your way.
@@TheBasicExpert well a thanks is owed to TSH.
I see bad faith arguements as destructive on two levels: first, it just leads to combative arguing that is more about attacking the other side and less about presenting the side you're supposed to champion.
Second, it kills growth of good ideas. Instead of seeing all the strengths and weaknesses from the two sides, an observer simply sees two people insulting each other and by extention, themselves if they happen to even slightly agree.
I am always reminded of an old Emo Phillips bit. I am certain I can't say the punchline on TH-cam, but it's basically him and another guy going through a series of ever-increasingly obscure ecumenical distinctions in their worship. Everything is fine until the last question. Purity spirals ruin friendships.
@@JohnSmith-jv7mv you can only go stop far until you reach the limit, and everybody has one
Gamest, Dramatist, Simulationest, Narrativest, and Companionest are what your looking at. As the game is HUMAN-centric. Not Game-centric. That's the problem. The focus is on the game - not on the players. The players are going to lean into one of those five categories. No one is 100% unless they are nerodivergent in some way, but they are going to lean one way or another. A good GM will recognize the Player type, and feed the game accordingly to all of the players. The game will take the shape of the players if you know what your doing as good GM. The Game System will lend itself toward one "style" or player or another. That's one of the main criticisms I have of 5e, is that its attempting to play to all five, and results in playing to none satisfactorily in the game rules, and leaving a lot more work for the GM than needed. And the more they expand it, the more work it creates. Its a horrible system as a result, unless you limit players to the 2014 PHB only. That I why I'm a big proponent of static rule systems like you find in Castles & Crusades/Amazing Adventures and "finished" editions of (A)D&D. These require less work to set up and less work to run than 3.x, 4e, 5e, 5e24, PF, PF2e, PF2eR, SF, SF2e, etc.etc. And that is what gaming is all about - me as the GM. The HackMaster 4th Edition Game Masters Guilde makes it very clear on page 191, the game is all about me as the GM.
@@TheCastleKeeper not at all a bad assessment of the situation as a whole, though I find 3.5e D&D to be one of the single most GM friendly systems available because if is modular. The issue comes in when people try to use every supplement and variant and option available all at once instead of doing exactly what you said, which is selecting the options that best tailor the game to your table and its style.
I agree that 5e is a mess though I disagree about why. Its biggest issue is not that it tries to be everything, but that it is radically player focused and everything is built around pandering to player vanity and power fantasy instead of being built around giving the GM tools to craft a balanced gaming experience for all at the table, including the GM.
Wow dice fudging okay you just lost all credibility.
@@BX-advocate then do did Gary Gygax, who condones dice fudging in his original books as well as the DMG
It’s just that you’re not supposed to ever go on record saying that you fudge from time to time. If you do it, do it, but never let your players know, never have it in writing ANYWHERE lol
@@drivinganddragons1818 Yeah there are things that even Gary Gygax was wrong about.
@@Wesley_Youre_a_Rabbit very true. It's a little different when you're running a TH-cam channel that discusses these things.
It should also be done very sparringly. I fudge dice, but it's happened on maybe 3 rolls in the past year.
@@drivinganddragons1818 You don't fudge the dice roll. You fudge the target number - and there are ways to do that in-game. Environmental factors are a God-send to a creative GM.